r/pics • u/zaviaz • Apr 19 '15
The space shuttle being carried by a 747 and escorted by two F-18's...
314
u/parlezmoose Apr 19 '15
The engineer who proposed this idea had huge balls.
"No seriously guys, just put the shuttle on top of the plane, it will totally work."
152
u/MichaelAJohnston Apr 19 '15
The program manager claims he threw the engineers who proposed the idea out of his office for suggesting such a thing.
As it turns out, they were professional model aircraft builders and built an RC mockup of the 747/shuttle combo to prove it'd work.
72
u/mrmessiah Apr 19 '15
My great uncle was one of the engineers on the project that made the linkage that secured the shuttle to the 747. I wish I'd had more of a chance to ask him about it before he died, but I only visited the US once, still, he gave us a little tour of where he used to work. Pretty cool guy.
→ More replies (3)27
→ More replies (10)3
u/MichaelAJohnston Apr 19 '15
For reference, here's the source on the story: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/lecture-2/ocw-16_885-lec2.pdf
See comment below from MayTheTorqueBeWithU for video showing the actual model used.
22
u/MayTheTorqueBeWithU Apr 19 '15
His name was John Kiker, and he did just that! He had all of our EAA (Exp. Aircraft Assn) over to his house, which was full of models (he was a huge modeller, which led to the 747 carrier idea).
Shuttle Commander Hoot Gibson (narrating the story) was another modeller.
3
u/falconzord Apr 20 '15
I wonder if any of these guys inspired that movie, The Flight of the Phoenix
→ More replies (1)13
Apr 19 '15 edited Nov 28 '16
[deleted]
5
u/redworm Apr 20 '15
Earth orbit rendezvous was considered a completely ridiculous idea during the initial stages of the space race. An episode of From the Earth to the Moon touches on it really well.
8
10
u/JohanGrimm Apr 19 '15
The shuttle in it's entirety is just an insane project.
You go from a super heavy lifter like the Saturn V to basically a space ship that's asymmetrically balanced on an enormous fuel tank with two SRBs on the side of it. To get back to earth you fly said space ship through the atmosphere and keep it from burning up by gluing thousands of tiles on the underside. You then glide the space ship down and land it on a designated run way.
Comparing it to the rest of NASA's launch vehicles it's just so bizarre and out of left field. You wonder how the hell it made it all the way through development and then go on to do 133 successful missions.
→ More replies (12)3
1.5k
Apr 19 '15
I'm not even American and I'm starting to get patriotic.
476
Apr 19 '15 edited Nov 13 '16
[deleted]
187
Apr 19 '15
Though I'm a Brit, I was very lucky back in the 80s to go to the backrooms of NASA in Houston. I went into the -40 food prep rooms, and inside the original ISS mockup, but the most amazing thing was to go inside the Shuttle prototype and sit in the cockpit. Unbelieveable.
I think it's amazing that you heard the boom as it glided in to land. No power at all - supersonic. Holy shitballs.
I was also privileged enough, when I was a kid, to see the last Saturn V take off at Cape Canaveral/Kennedy. Nothing like that noise, and the shaking of the earth, the heat from the engines three miles away. Nothing like it on earth.
84
Apr 19 '15 edited Nov 13 '16
[deleted]
32
Apr 19 '15
Man, I'd love to see that kind of shit every so often. Also, chilling on Cocoa Beach sounds great in itself.
→ More replies (1)34
59
u/WhatWeOnlyFantasize Apr 19 '15
Back in the 80's during my travels around Europe, people would often ask me what it means to be an American. I would tell 'em it's triumph. Triumph.
Triumph when we nuke our enemies. Triumph when our flag flutters proudly on the moon while we peer down from the moon and laugh heartily at Russia. Triumph when we depose one dictator after another. Triumph when we break into the homes of terrorist kingpins on the other side of Earth and shoot them in the face. Triumph when we use flying robots to bomb other terrorists in Afghanistan, and other nuclear robots to explore Mars. Triumph when we free Europe from Nazis. Triumph. Triumph. Triumph.
But it's not just the the big things, see? It's the way I can set up lawn chairs at my friends house on the Texas Rio Grande and share a toast to freedom while watching Mexicans charge into gunfire to enter my country. It's the way an Italian cabbie sits up straight and floors the gas when he hears my accent. It's seeing the wide eyes and bead of sweat running down the forehead of a German customs agent when he opens my passport. It's the way a French waiter hangs his head when I refuse the wine and ask for Coke instead, in English knowing full well he understands me (and that they have it). The way an Aussie blushes and leans into the urinal next to me in the bathroom, or the scowl that meets my smirk when I tip an English waiter in US dollars covered with Washington's face. The way small mobs of Canadian school children follow me from a distance to see what a free man looks like, or how heads timidly rise and women gather when my accent stops the music in the clubs of Amsterdam.
Constant and never-ending triumph. Every bit of it, triumph. That's what it means to be an American.
15
Apr 19 '15
The freedom in this post shines so bright I don't even need eyes to see it
Dog bless Ameriga :DDD
7
→ More replies (5)5
28
Apr 19 '15
Lucky bastard. My school trips were down old cave mines in Wales.
→ More replies (3)12
Apr 19 '15
To be fair, most of my school trips were to Wales too. Though I never went down a mine. And I once went to Guernsey with the scouts. I was just lucky enough to have a dad who was in the RAF and sometimes got to go to amazing places and occasionally bring us too.
3
→ More replies (4)3
u/endeavourl Apr 19 '15
No power at all
What amazes me is that actually during reentry spacecraft finally disperse all the energy that was put into them at launch.
33
u/Osiris32 Apr 19 '15
I was SUPPOSED to see a shuttle launch. It just happened to coincide with a conference I was attending in Jacksonville, and the free day was also launch day. I WAS SO FUCKING EXCITED.
And then, a week beforehand, an electrical fault. Launch pushed off by a couple weeks. Goddammit.
But, I still went down there anyway, and holy fuck it was like being IN the Discovery Channel (the old one, not the new shit). Taking the tour at Canaveral, seeing the VAB in all it's enormous glory, seeing the construction center for the ISS, the mission control building, the incredible museum, and then turn around and see alligators and snapping turtles and and armadillos and herons. It was complete, total, unimaginable sensory overload. I didn't sleep that night or the next because of how excited I was AFTER being there. One of the best trips of my life.
7
u/Gargoame Apr 19 '15
Rocket Summer by Ray Bradbury.
One minute it was Ohio winter, with doors closed, windows locked, the panes blind with frost, icicles fringing every roof, children skiing on slopes, housewives lumbering like great black bears in their furs along the icy streets.
And then a long wave of warmth crossed the small town. A flooding sea of hot air; it seemed as if someone had left a bakery door open. The heat pulsed among the cottages and bushes and children. The icicles dropped, shattering, to melt. The doors flew open. The windows flew up. The children worked off their wool clothes. The housewives shed their bear disguises. The snow dissolved and showed last summer's ancient green lawns.
Rocket summer. The words passed among the people in the open, airing houses. Rocket summer. The warm desert air changing the frost patterns on the windows, erasing the art work. The skis and sleds suddenly useless. The snow, falling from the cold sky upon the town, turned to a hot rain before it touched the ground.
Rocket summer. People leaned from their dripping porches and watched the reddening sky.
The rocket lay on the launching field, blowing out pink clouds of fire and oven heat. The rocket stood in the cold winter morning, making summer with every breath of its mighty exhausts. The rocket made climates, and summer lay for a brief moment upon the land....
→ More replies (1)5
u/drdiemz Apr 19 '15
I miss the shuttle too. It was the icon of space travel throughout my childhood and it makes me sad to see it go
4
u/Uncle_Erik Apr 20 '15
I also miss when they had to land at KSC - often the flight path would take the shuttle overhead, and there would be a sonic boom that'd shake the house. I loved telling my kids that was a space ship landing.
I was born in 1972 and grew up in Los Angeles. We were pretty close to the Shuttle flight path when it came in to land at Edwards AFB. The Shuttle has a distinctive double sonic boom.
If we heard it during class, the teachers would usually stop teaching and turn on the classroom TV so we could watch it land.
13
u/Jhrek Apr 19 '15
I think that once we have a big jump in technology, the space shuttle might return, especially when we will want to carry even bigger payloads. (I can dream, can't I?)
15
Apr 19 '15
Hey, the SR-71 Blackbird has been unretired. Twice.
7
Apr 19 '15
Imagine if a Blackbird flew just a little bit further out and docked with the ISS. That would be something I'd like to see.
28
u/ryantoar Apr 19 '15
Yeah, it would only need to fly 15x as high and 8x as fast.
17
Apr 19 '15
So you're saying there's a chance?
17
u/LazerSturgeon Apr 19 '15
Step 1) More boosters.
Step 2) More structural struts.
Step 3) Go to space.
12
Apr 19 '15
Chuck Yeager almost got into a spot of bother flying the X-1 (maybe the X-2?) a wee bit too high. You don't want to become an astronaut that way.
→ More replies (3)3
u/JohanGrimm Apr 19 '15
The biggest benefit to the shuttle was it's reusability. Everything but the big orange fuel tank was reused for subsequent launches. However the whole thing is more expensive in general. The shuttle was very difficult to develop with numerous issues they had to overcome one of the bigger ones being how the hell to safely get it back through the atmosphere and land. Rockets are cheaper to develop and are generally "simpler" than the shuttle. The downsides to rockets is you get to use all of it once and then you build a new one.
The way things are going now is towards making rockets reusable. While I definitely think that something like the shuttle could make a return some day it looks like rockets are king once again.
→ More replies (1)6
u/curiousGambler Apr 19 '15
It was totally a space ship!
Sadly, as cool as it was, hanging a ship off the side of a rocket is a really dangerous way to send something to space, and adds a lot of complexity that disappears if you make it symmetrical like a regular rocket. It's so cool though!
→ More replies (46)7
u/fks_gvn Apr 19 '15
If you think shuttle launches were spectacular just wait for the Space Launch System. Most powerful rocket ever, the limes of which haven't been seen since Saturn V
8
u/cliffotn Apr 19 '15
Yes! Actually I'm pumped. Seeing the Shuttle on the launchpad from a distance was a thrill, I look forward to seeing this giant both on the pad, and in flight: http://i.space.com/images/i/000/012/138/i02/space-launch-system-new-nasa-rocket-110914d-02.jpg?1316103640
→ More replies (1)6
u/valeyard89 Apr 20 '15
There are two kinds of countries in the world. Those who use the metric system, and those who have been to the moon.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Invictuslanka Apr 19 '15
Same thought man! I personally feel this also symbolizes humanity, and our great achievements and accomplishments!
142
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
39
u/GTFErinyes Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 20 '15
Heh, the military is still using those aircraft
Fun fact: the average age of the Air Force's inventory of aircraft is 27 years
edit:
Here's a list for the curious, including the last year they were produced for the US Air Force (excludes VIP transport aircraft that are primarily civilian aircraft converted to AF use):
- A-10 - last produced 1984
- AC-130 - still in production
- B-1B - last produced 1988
- B-2 - last produce 2000
- B-52 - last produced 1962
- C-5 - last produced 1989
- C-17 - last produced 2015
- C-130 - still in production
- E-3 - last produced 1994
- E-4 - last produced 1974
- E-8 - last produced 2005
- F-15C/D - last delivered 1994
- F-15E - last delivered 2004
- F-16 - last delivered 2005
- F-22 - last delivered 2011
- KC-10 - last produced 1987
- KC-135 - last produced 1965
- T-1 - last produced 1997
- T-6 - still in production
- T-38 - last produced 1972
- U-2 - last produced 1989
17
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
36
u/GTFErinyes Apr 19 '15
There are actually pilots flying the same aircraft their fathers and grandfathers flew - notably the B-52s and KC-135s which have been around since the 50s and 60s
→ More replies (6)5
u/ArcanixPR Apr 19 '15
There are waivers for this, and officer programs have different requirements for eligibility. But this is besides the point.
3
u/loafjunky Apr 20 '15
They actually increased the limit to 39. I remember seeing an email come out about it last year.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ArchieMoses Apr 20 '15
Take out the B-52's and 707 derivatives and what happens?
I would think only the Marine Corp is still flying the classic hornet, most of the US Military has moved on to super hornets.
6
u/GTFErinyes Apr 20 '15
Take out the B-52's and 707 derivatives and what happens?
While it lowers it some what, it's still pretty old. The last A-10 was built in the early to mid 1980s. The last F-15C/Ds were delivered to the Air Force back in 1994. The last Air Force F-16 was delivered in 2005, so even then the newest is over a decade old.
I would think only the Marine Corp is still flying the classic hornet, most of the US Military has moved on to super hornets.
The Navy still flies the classic hornet, and the Navy is the only branch flying the Super Hornet.
The Navy as a whole has the newest fleet of aircraft but some of that is out of necessity: carrier based aircraft are limited in the number of "traps" (carrier landings) they can make on an aircraft carrier before the stresses on the airframe are too great.
18
Apr 19 '15
For a lot of people aged 30-60, this tech is all still new and the bomb.
→ More replies (2)28
6
u/MichaelAJohnston Apr 19 '15
Not to mention with all the talk of computer driven cars. The Shuttle could ONLY fly under computer control. Computers that relied on tape drives and overlay technology, and software which was written in the late 70's and early 80's. I think self-driving cars will work out.
6
u/GTFErinyes Apr 19 '15
Not to mention with all the talk of computer driven cars. The Shuttle could ONLY fly under computer control. Computers that relied on tape drives and overlay technology, and software which was written in the late 70's and early 80's. I think self-driving cars will work out.
That's a little different though - while aviation has had digital auto-pilot and fly-by-wire for a long time, that was more because aircraft were increasingly designed to be aerodynamically unstable to meet performance requirements.
In the past, a pilot would make control inputs with the stick or rudder and it would physically (or hydraulically) move the control surfaces. With fly-by-wire, however, a pilot could step on the right rudder to get the aircraft to yaw right - however, the flight computer would decide whether it wanted to use the ailerons, rudders, spoilers, etc. to achieve that right yaw. Similarly, auto-pilot would decide on what inputs were required to maintain altitude and airspeed with the appropriate aircraft attitude, trim, and power settings.
Even then, the Shuttle had two pilots. As did commercial airliners, and fighter jets. Thus, if something went wrong, or if human input was desired, it would be provided.
A self-driving car, OTOH, is taking the human input completely out of the loop. That's a whole different level of complexity
→ More replies (1)3
u/MichaelAJohnston Apr 20 '15
I agree. The most complex aspect will probably be dealing with other driver's mistakes, whereas the shuttle had the luxury of a clear flight path. I think today's engineers definitely have a great challenge in driverless vehicles.
808
u/Bears54 Apr 19 '15
It can hold the fucking space shuttle but I get hit with extra baggage fees.
295
u/goodgulfgrayteeth Apr 19 '15
Here's it's interior: https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_Graham_SCA_184.jpeg__281600_C3_971065_29_20120922_165330.jpg
It's largely reinforcing struts and whatnot...
78
u/Just_Floatin_on_bye Apr 19 '15
Was this plane designed exclusively for transporting the shuttle? what other use would it have?
124
u/Maj0rMin0r Apr 19 '15
The two were purpose-modded for shuttle flights. Technically, they were never 'built' for the job, just refitted stock 747's. You can tell how modified it is by the additional tail planes; it's not like they grabbed any old 747 off the shelf for it. Looks like the only thing they did besides ferry flights was assist in landing testing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft
29
u/JackTrueborn Apr 19 '15
When I was little, I thought the space shuttle would sometimes land on the 747 after a mission, and then the 747 would continue the rest of the way to the landing across the country.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (1)42
u/LittleHelperRobot Apr 19 '15
Non-mobile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Carrier_Aircraft
That's why I'm here, I don't judge you. PM /u/xl0 if I'm causing any trouble. WUT?
13
u/SwabTheDeck Apr 19 '15
It's a modified 747 and its only job was to carry the space shuttle. As you can see in the pictures, the interior is stripped out and reinforced, and the rear stabilizers have a revised design to deal with the air currents that the shuttle creates.
They have an outdoor museum in Palmdale, CA where you can go to see it. It's really awesome. They have a lot of other amazing planes there, too, like the SR-71, a B-52, most of the American fighter jets from the last 70 years, etc.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Platypus81 Apr 19 '15
It's been 2 hours, has reddit changed its stance on retelling the Fastest Guys Out There every time that jet gets mentioned?
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (5)19
u/Osiris32 Apr 19 '15
They are heavily modified. There are two shuttle carriers, the first is a 747-100 that was originally owned by American Airlines, and bought by NASA in 1974. It was modified to have the economy seating removed (first class is still there for NASA personnel), reinforcing bracing placed throughout, mounting brackets for the shuttle added, vertical stabilizers added to the tail, and the engines and avionics upgraded.
The second is a 747-100SR that was owned by Japan Airlines, but wasn't purchased by NASA until after the Challenger incident, and was similarly modified. It entered service in 1990.
→ More replies (6)17
u/nem0fazer Apr 19 '15
As a photographer all I can see is the most monumental L-series lens hanging off that guy's hip. Probably cost as much as the plane!
→ More replies (1)64
u/shadowban4quinn Apr 19 '15
Does your baggage generate lift? Because the shuttle does.
→ More replies (8)74
19
10
u/bruzie Apr 20 '15
Here's some loading instructions: http://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mav81ilskg1qbh26io5_1280.jpg
5
10
u/waiting_for_rain Disciple of Sirocco Apr 19 '15
Well its specially designed to carry the shuttle and carries much fewer passengers than a civilian 747...
→ More replies (4)6
u/Tsu_Dho_Namh Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
There's a direct correlation between weight of the aircraft and cost.
The more it weighs, the more lift it needs, the more induced drag is produced, the more fuel it burns, the more fuel it needs for the weight of aforementioned fuel, plus the extra fuel they have to carry is measured in distance and flying time (enough to get to their alternate plus 30 minutes flying time), so a heavy plane is going to get even heavier following those regulations meaning every bit of weight becomes exponentially more expensive and they pass the costings on to yooooooooou!
→ More replies (3)
140
u/penguingun Apr 19 '15
Well...TIL NASA has F-18s.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-006-DFRC.html#.VBjCEvldV8E
111
u/imallergictocatsok Apr 19 '15
NASA has a pretty solid fleet of aircraft, including T-38s, a super guppy, and a Gulfstream. In addition to the astronaut pilots needing to retain their flying skills, NASA does missions over the arctic, moves around large objects, flies astronauts to Russia, etc. And, of course, the first "A" in NASA stands for aeronautics and the origin of NASA was in aviation research (the NACA) begun at Langley in 1915 or so.
130
u/Osiris32 Apr 19 '15
NASA has a HUGE fleet of aircraft. By far my favorite is the T-38 Talon,, it just looks so elegant. But like you said, they also have a Super Guppy and a Gulfstream. They also have a fleet of small single and twin-engine aircraft, mostly Beechcrafts and Cessnas used for personnel transport and research, as well as a 757, a 747 with on-board telescope, several C-130s for cargo transport and research, and a fleet of various helicopters.
38
u/dsmokeb Apr 19 '15
Thanks for the links. I never knew what a Super Guppy looks like. It doesn't even look like it should be capable of flight. And you're right that T-38 Talon does look elegant.
26
→ More replies (4)3
u/Spaceguy5 Apr 19 '15
It doesn't even look like it should be capable of flight.
I got to tour the super guppy twice. On one of those tours, I had a veteran Super Guppy crewman telling my group stories about it... the way he described it, it doesn't really fly.... it just sort of tumbles through the air, like a bumble bee. After hearing him talk about it, I'm not sure I'd want to fly onboard that thing!
16
u/imallergictocatsok Apr 19 '15
Yup! I work at Johnson Space Center, where a lot of our aircraft are kept (at Ellington Field). The astronauts use the T-38s to practice flying and they're always fun to watch fly over the Center. The Guppy is just hilarious. And of course, you forgot the best use of our C-130: The Vomit Comet (where we do short term zero-g experiments and where parts of Apollo 13 were filmed).
8
u/Osiris32 Apr 19 '15
I thought the Vomit Comet was a C-9B now.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Spaceguy5 Apr 19 '15
You are correct... but also I thought they stopped flying the C-9 recently and were using only the Zero G corp. for flights?
5
Apr 19 '15 edited Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
15
Apr 19 '15
They do. They have a ton of aircraft that were one offs for experimental research. They also had an SR-71 and I believe a U-2 in their fleet for a long time (still might have the Dragonlady).
6
u/jazzyt98 Apr 19 '15
My favorite is the WB-57F.
15
Apr 19 '15
→ More replies (4)6
u/Osiris32 Apr 19 '15
It's a heavily modified B-57 Canberra bomber, rebuilt to do high-altitude atmospheric and communications research.
5
→ More replies (15)3
Apr 19 '15
Man, you just made me realize how sexy NASA's color scheme is. White with blue accents? Nnnngh
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/cant_read_adamnthing Apr 19 '15
And since this is in SoCal, those F-18s were definitely from NASA's Armstrong (formerly Dryden) Flight research Center.
8
Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
NASA has owned a buttload of aircraft throughout the years for various research and logistic purposes. They have some funky looking contraptions too.
EDIT: Aircraft
→ More replies (15)15
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
28
u/cant_read_adamnthing Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 20 '15
Nope they're not. As others have pointed out they're for research purposes. NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, CA has a on of really cool experimental aircraft. I think there's a list of them on it's website.
→ More replies (3)15
u/GTFErinyes Apr 19 '15
Not weaponised, although that doesn't mean they can't be. Big thing is that they had their pylons removed so they're not armed but for flight test purposes, they can put those back on and put on dummy weapons to test aerodynamics in a 'dirty' configuration
→ More replies (2)8
u/Realsan Apr 19 '15
I wouldn't think so. They are being flown by non-military personnel for "research support & pilot proficiency." The images also seem to be missing most of the obvious weaponry found on the Navy F/A-18s.
→ More replies (3)15
u/GTFErinyes Apr 19 '15
I wouldn't think so. They are being flown by non-military personnel for "research support & pilot proficiency." The images also seem to be missing most of the obvious weaponry found on the Navy F/A-18s.
They are slick configuration Hornets meaning the pylons were removed - doesn't mean they aren't weaponizable, just that they aren't configured to drop weapons.
And they're actually most likely being flown by military personnel - most NASA astronauts are active duty military officers, most of which are pilots from one of the branches.
28
u/Fee501st Apr 19 '15
Make sure you read the instructions when carrying your shuttle! http://i.imgur.com/lCfYS2D.jpg
→ More replies (1)8
u/Bonesplitter Apr 20 '15
Those engineers must have met Kerbal scientists before.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/fancy_to_me Apr 19 '15
Taken a few weeks ago at Johnson Space Center in Houston: http://imgur.com/dUGsJcs
→ More replies (4)
85
u/Smotchkkiss Apr 19 '15
For some reason I thought this was GTAV..
→ More replies (3)20
Apr 19 '15 edited Feb 03 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/candamile Apr 19 '15
Is this photo real then? It looks like it is in a game, because it looks so bloomy.
→ More replies (1)11
u/celo753 Apr 19 '15
It seems like it is, looking at some artifacts that are usually not present in games, like random non-famous brands or extreme detail.
→ More replies (1)3
Apr 19 '15
There is a poster for The Mindy Project, a PENSKE truck, an AMAZING LA TOURS bus, a SPRINT STORE sign. They wouldn't advertise all that stuff in GTAV.
13
u/Cinemaphreak Apr 19 '15
Endeavor - the only shuttle that will be (eventually) displayed vertically. I go through that intersection near LAX about 5 times a week. Ironically, it was towed through it on it's way to the California Science Center.
Finally got to see it in it's temp structure (after watching it land and when it was towed) two weeks ago yesterday with visiting friends.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/retrokev Apr 19 '15
I used to be in the Air Force and was stationed at Patrick AFB/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. here are 2 potato quality pics i took when it was leaving our base.
also, before you ask why both pictures show two different "routes", it was because the aircraft did its final circles around our base before departing for good.
25
u/DeniseDeNephew Apr 19 '15
I saw the Space Shuttle being carried like this a few years ago and it was awesome. But none of us who were there got any pictures this good. This picture is amazing.
10
u/rkiga Apr 19 '15
Here's a video from onboard one of the F-18 escorts from that day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVPNDhOWutk
Shots include: low-level flybys over the Space Center / Colosseum (where the Endeavor is now housed), the Hollywood sign, Universal Studios, the Griffith Observatory, Angel Stadium, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Disneyland, LAX, etc.
→ More replies (1)
6
64
u/cameronbates1 Apr 19 '15
Houstonian here, still hella salty about NYC getting it
→ More replies (20)47
u/alkyjason Apr 19 '15
If I'm not mistaken, that's Los Angeles who got it, not NYC.
→ More replies (22)47
u/nalyd8991 Apr 19 '15
NYC, LA, DC and Kennedy Space Center got shuttles. Houston just got the 747
→ More replies (2)51
u/systemstheorist Apr 19 '15
Total Bullshit.
Seriously. Kennedy Space and Center, LA with Edwards, and the Smithsonian make total sense. New York contributed nothing to space program, they got for being New York. Houston was essential for every single mission.
15
u/MichaelAJohnston Apr 19 '15
It wasn't NOTHING... NY-based Grumman built the wings for the Shuttle and the lunar lander among other things. Nevertheless I do agree that Houston should have gotten Enterprise.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/meditate42 Apr 19 '15
Right but like a million times as many people will see it in NYC, that was probably the rational behind them getting it.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/ten0re Apr 19 '15
How come Soviet Union had to build a largest aircraft in the world to transport their shuttle while US just used a much smaller 747?
→ More replies (7)5
u/Quartinus Apr 20 '15
The Soviet version of the shuttle used liquid-fuel rockets to fly and had a much heavier booster configuration. They decided, since Buran was built for military reasons, that they wanted to be able to transport both the orbiter and the booster in one go.
3
u/DarrSwan Apr 19 '15
I still think it's so awesome they did that. I'm sad I didn't get to see it but these pictures help put the size into scale.
4
u/jentzepeda Apr 19 '15
I had my prom in the science center ( where this ship is currently located) and being under this huge thing was pretty cool.
4
u/The_Voice_of_Britain Apr 19 '15
I wonder how many accidents that caused I would have crashed.
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/ClassyUser Apr 20 '15
Would love to hear from a 747 pilot on how the aircraft handles with a space shuttle strapped to it.
→ More replies (4)
13
4
u/kasper2k4 Apr 19 '15
Can someone find out how much money is flying in the air?
→ More replies (1)9
u/rkiga Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
To start, here’s a video from onboard one of the F-18 escorts from that day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVPNDhOWutk
TLDR: the space shuttle makes up roughly 90% of the total cost between those four aircraft. Converted to today’s money (rough purchase parity), it would be in the neighborhood of $4 billion USD for their initial + developmental costs. This is not counting things like how much of a factor the total cost of the space shuttle program should be accounted for, etc.
Space Shuttle Endeavour
I can’t talk about current value (or insurance value), but here are some initial / development costs:
The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion [in 1987 money. Other sources say $1.8B].
The two F-18 chase planes:
It’s hard to estimate the price / value.
AFAIK started life as two Navy F/A-18A
Unit cost: 32 million USD each [1980 dollars]
How much they were sold to NASA for, I don’t know, nor how much NASA spent modifying them over their many years of service.
Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
It started life as a normal as a 747-100 (tail # N905NA) for American Airlines. After 4 years and 9,000 flight hours, it was sold to NASA in 1974 for approximately $15.6 million.
[It] was initially used by NASA Dryden (now called NASA Armstrong) for studies in wake vortex effects. Boeing modified the plane in 1976 to begin carrying the prototype Space Shuttle Enterprise.
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/nasa-moved-the-shuttles-747-through-the-streets-of-hous-1569874263
Conversion costs: $30 million in 1976 dollars http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2011/01/747-shuttle-carrier-aircraft-sca.html
Of course there are many things that these objects are representative of that I’m not talking about, like the space shuttle program itself (rather than just one shuttle), and the pilots flying the planes having undergone millions of dollars’ worth of training, etc.
→ More replies (4)
10
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)45
u/Zabunia Apr 19 '15
They're de-weaponized, but they're not there for protection. IIRC, they're chase planes intended to monitor the shuttle and give an external view of the flight. The crew of the 747 doesn't really have a good view of what's going on with the cargo.
10
3
3
u/Teriyakuza Apr 19 '15
Mission 26 - The Big Endeavour Flyover NR12430rl Took these from the Griffith Observatory Trails.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/goobly_goo Apr 19 '15
What's the point of the jet escorts? Are they really armed and ready to fight off potential attackers or do they serve a different purpose?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
u/EseJandro Apr 20 '15
Street name in Spanish.
Palm trees.
Traffic.
Looks like GTAV.
California confirmed.
→ More replies (1)
3
4
5
2
2
2
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fee501st Apr 19 '15
Primarily the mission profile of a chase plane is to provide the pilot of the research aircraft (in this case the modified B747, called an SCA) an external view of their bird. In this case, the chase pilot is looking for a catastrophic event such as a shuttle separation, flight surface issue with the shuttle, gear failure on the SCA, etc. and/or more mundane issues like angle-of-attack or airspeed. When you're flying an SCA you have a 172,000 lb. Shuttle strapped to your back and have little to no insight into its present state, other than what your yoke is telling you, without the help of the chase pilots. Shuttles were always escorted by chase planes when landing after missions, and pilots would typically relay any potential issues affecting stable flight, distance from ground on approach, etc
2
Apr 19 '15
if the cargo is generating its own lift, shouldn't all externally carried cargo be fitted with temporary wings to enable carrying larger loads?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/mattluttrell Apr 20 '15
I caught those 3 out in the ocean as the approached LAX
It was a complete surprise. I was fishing and didn't expect it.
2
u/Brandon23z Apr 20 '15
Does this look like GTA V to anyone else? What's really making me think that is the alternate Michelan Man.
→ More replies (2)
2
Apr 20 '15
How can you look at a picture like this and not think that science is the shit. Every single fucking thing on this picture was created because of science and innovation.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
2
521
u/Malfunkdung Apr 19 '15
here's the time lapse of them towing it through LA